The Mideast..here we go again.... - Page 4

theprestige · 12th December 2020, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yet again you are conflating being anti-extra judicial murder with support.

I do not support the Iranian regime in any way - they're a crazy bunch of islamofascists.

But that doesn't give me, Israel or USA the right to kill them.

Fringe reset much?

The Iranian regime being actively at war with its neighbors and their allies is what justifies military action against them, up to and including strikes against their military commanders and key technical personnel. I guarantee you that if the Iranian regime gave up its nuclear ambitions and abandoned its program of warfare-by-terrorism, they'd get a lot better treatment.

Also you 'racism' argument is pure, unadulterated, pants-on-head-retarded dishonesty. Behold my evidences! Israel: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. Saudi Arabia: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. Kuwait: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. Egypt: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. India: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment.

But Iran? As you say, "they're a crazy bunch of islamofascists". And they're not peaceful about it, either. You ever stop to wonder if maybe that is why they get treated the way they do?

Ziggurat · 12th December 2020, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

ah the content free unwillingness to self reflect

... he said, in a content-free post lacking any self reflection.

The Atheist · 12th December 2020, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The Iranian regime being actively at war with its neighbors

You have a very strange concept of what "active war" means, and the statement is pure nonsense.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I guarantee you that if the Iranian regime gave up its nuclear ambitions and abandoned its program of warfare-by-terrorism, they'd get a lot better treatment.

Failing to answer my point that hostilities were minimal when USA was adhering to the agreement arranged by Obama. It was peaceful until your orange hero cancelled it.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Also you 'racism' argument...

You're getting me mixed up with someone else.

Originally Posted by theprestige

But Iran? As you say, "they're a crazy bunch of islamofascists". And they're not peaceful about it, either. You ever stop to wonder if maybe that is why they get treated the way they do?

I repeat - there was peace until your boy Trump decided to unilaterally rip the agreement up.

Maybe it's you who should stop and think.

Ziggurat · 13th December 2020, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I repeat - there was peace until your boy Trump decided to unilaterally rip the agreement up.

No, there was not. If you think there was, you were not paying attention.

Mader Levap · 13th December 2020, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't believe that was in retaliation for the earlier attacks. They launched missiles at retaliatory targets and the shooting down of the airliner occurred days later.

I think his point was it is possible that thing similar to shootdown of civilian airplane (because of paranoid atmosphere after assassination of Suleiman) could happen again after assassination of that scientist.

Originally Posted by dudalb

Here come the Iranian fanboys.
Amaxzing how a right wing religoius regime has coneed so many on the left into supporting them.

You do not need to support Iran to note USA's role in shaping Iran as it is today (fervently denied by certain people here, of course, since it would mean USA has it's share of blame for Iran's current state and we can't have that, do we?).

The Atheist · 13th December 2020, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, there was not. If you think there was, you were not paying attention.

I've asked for evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement.

And nobody has posted any.

I've searched records online to find evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement.

And found none.

There is ample evidence of aggressive acts before and after the agreement was put in place.

I'm quite prepared to accept evidence of Iran's aggression in that period, but I've been unable to find any.

You clearly have that evidence.

Go ahead and show it.

theprestige · 13th December 2020, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You have a very strange concept of what "active war" means, and the statement is pure nonsense.

I find it strange that so few other intelligent people don't see Iran's use of terrorism as warfare against its neighbors and their allies.

Quote:

Failing to answer my point that hostilities were minimal when USA was adhering to the agreement arranged by Obama. It was peaceful until your orange hero cancelled it.

Hostilities were minimal because Obama refused to take the regime to task for abrogating the agreement.

Iran is threatening violence to get its way. This is extortion, and Obama cooperated with extortionists. I'd rather have a little violence now in a good cause, then let Iran get to the point where it can back its extortion with nuclear weapons.

Quote:

You're getting me mixed up with someone else.

Yep! My bad.

Quote:

I repeat - there was peace until your boy Trump decided to unilaterally rip the agreement up.

No, there was not. Iran actively promotes and funds violence throughout the region. And they had already abrogated the agreement by the time Trump took office. It wasn't him that tore it up.

Quote:

Maybe it's you who should stop and think.

Stop and think about all of Iran's state-sponsored terrorism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_a...ther_countries

The Atheist · 13th December 2020, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I find it strange that so few other intelligent people don't see Iran's use of terrorism as warfare against its neighbors and their allies.

As those intelligent people can also see that things like Israel's terrorist activities are also warfare against their neighbours and their allies, it seems a reasonable thing to look for, although I haven't denied any of Iran's atrocities, so I don't know who you mean.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Hostilities were minimal because Obama refused to take the regime to task for abrogating the agreement.

Now we're getting somewhere slowly - you admit the hostilities dimmed to a flicker.

But do show how they abrogated the agreement - it looked to me as though they were complying right up your orange buddy ditching it.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Iran is threatening violence to get its way.

It's a bit tu quoque, but in a world where America, Russia, China, Israel and several dozen other countries use and threaten violence to get their own way, it's hardly something to single them out for.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Stop and think about all of Iran's state-sponsored terrorism?

Maybe they'd ditch the terrorism if countries on the other side did likewise.

Worked in Northern Ireland. Mostly.

Ziggurat · 13th December 2020, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I've asked for evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement.

And nobody has posted any.

I've searched records online to find evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement.

And found none.

There is ample evidence of aggressive acts before and after the agreement was put in place.

I'm quite prepared to accept evidence of Iran's aggression in that period, but I've been unable to find any.

You clearly have that evidence.

Go ahead and show it.

For example:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN0UW1Q7

theprestige · 13th December 2020, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As those intelligent people can also see that things like Israel's terrorist activities are also warfare against their neighbours and their allies, it seems a reasonable thing to look for, although I haven't denied any of Iran's atrocities, so I don't know who you mean.

I don't deny that Israel is at war with its neighbors.

I mean that you do deny that Iran is at war with its neighbors.

The Atheist · 13th December 2020, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

For example:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN0UW1Q7

Thanks for proving my point.

They arrested and released some sailors.

Quote:

The U.S. sailors, who were aboard two patrol craft, were detained by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on January 12 when they inadvertently entered Iranian territorial waters. They were released the next day after being held for about 15 hours.

Hardly an aggressive or violent act, and certainly not anything like an act of war or terrorism.

I'd be prepared to bet that anyone arrested after straying into US waters is going to be held for more than 15 hours, just going by the ICE cages and incarcerations.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't deny that Israel is at war with its neighbors.

I mean that you do deny that Iran is at war with its neighbors.

We just have the bar for "at war" set differently, but if that's where you want it set, then I'd agree Iran is at war with its neighbours and allies.

But clearly wasn't during the currency of the agreement, as Ziggurat has neatly evinced.

theprestige · 13th December 2020, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Thanks for proving my point.

They arrested and released some sailors.

Hardly an aggressive or violent act, and certainly not anything like an act of war or terrorism.

I'd be prepared to bet that anyone arrested after straying into US waters is going to be held for more than 15 hours, just going by the ICE cages and incarcerations.

We just have the bar for "at war" set differently, but if that's where you want it set, then I'd agree Iran is at war with its neighbours and allies.

But clearly wasn't during the currency of the agreement, as Ziggurat has neatly evinced.

Evidenced*

And a slowing of operational tempo between major campaigns is not the same as not being at war. They didn't stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah during this period. They didn't stop supporting insurgents in Iraq during this period. And they didn't stop abrogating your precious agreement during this period.

The only reason they weren't causing more trouble directly for Obama was because he'd already given them a period of peace and quiet to advance their long-term strategy. They weren't going to **** that up for themselves, though Obama should have done it for them.

Ziggurat · 13th December 2020, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

And they didn't stop abrogating your precious agreement during this period.

That's what I don't get about supporters of the deal: the refusal to acknowledge that Iran has never actually abided by it.

theprestige · 13th December 2020, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's what I don't get about supporters of the deal: the refusal to acknowledge that Iran has never actually abided by it.

Oh, but Obama never penalized them for it, so Peace For Our Time or something... Actually, that would make a lot of sense. The Munich Agreement was a huge success, thanks to the brilliant statesmanship of Neville Chamberlain, until that nasty old Winston Churchill called out poor Mister Adolf and started a war.

The Atheist · 13th December 2020, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Evidenced*

Nope.

I thought you might have noticed my custom title (or the last time you failed) and not bothered trying that kind of stuff again.

Originally Posted by theprestige

And a slowing of operational tempo between major campaigns is not the same as not being at war.

When it slows to zero, it is.

Originally Posted by theprestige

They didn't stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah during this period. They didn't stop supporting insurgents in Iraq during this period.

See my comment about NI - if Israel put down the guns first and treated claims to its occupied lands. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

If the ME situation was as easy as getting Hamas/Hezbollah to put their guns down even Jared Kushner could have solved it.

Originally Posted by theprestige

And they didn't stop abrogating your precious agreement during this period.

In. What. Way.

Please list your evidence of the ways they broke the agreement.

Originally Posted by theprestige

The only reason they weren't causing more trouble directly for Obama was because he'd already given them a period of peace and quiet to advance their long-term strategy. They weren't going to **** that up for themselves, though Obama should have done it for them.

With that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy you should have a go at writing a bible.

Just curious - where do you list Iran in threats to USA and/or world peace? Put this list in order, and feel free to add any:

North Korea
Russia
China
Afghanistan
Iran
ISIS
Al Qaeda
Al Shabaab/Boko Haram

Keeping in mind that Russia is still occupying Crimea and parts of Ukraine, North Korea is developing its nukes unhindered, China is still in charge of Honkers, and the Taliban is building an immense terrorist network thanks to all the lessons they've learned from America so far.

angrysoba · 13th December 2020, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oh, but Obama never penalized them for it, so Peace For Our Time or something... Actually, that would make a lot of sense. The Munich Agreement was a huge success, thanks to the brilliant statesmanship of Neville Chamberlain, until that nasty old Winston Churchill called out poor Mister Adolf and started a war.

Huh? Neville Chamberlain declared war, not Churchill.

theprestige · 14th December 2020, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Huh? Neville Chamberlain declared war, not Churchill.

Heh. I guess it's true what they say about arguments from analogy. :-D

The Atheist · 5th January 2021, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

THis could get nasty with Iran swearing revenge.......

I just thought I'd check in and see how much vengeance they've done so far.

12th December 2020, 02:34 PM	#121
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,663	Originally Posted by The Atheist Yet again you are conflating being anti-extra judicial murder with support. I do not support the Iranian regime in any way - they're a crazy bunch of islamofascists. But that doesn't give me, Israel or USA the right to kill them. Fringe reset much? The Iranian regime being actively at war with its neighbors and their allies is what justifies military action against them, up to and including strikes against their military commanders and key technical personnel. I guarantee you that if the Iranian regime gave up its nuclear ambitions and abandoned its program of warfare-by-terrorism, they'd get a lot better treatment. Also you 'racism' argument is pure, unadulterated, pants-on-head-retarded dishonesty. Behold my evidences! Israel: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. Saudi Arabia: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. Kuwait: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. Egypt: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. India: Full of "brown people", gets good treatment. But Iran? As you say, "they're a crazy bunch of islamofascists". And they're not peaceful about it, either. You ever stop to wonder if maybe that is why they get treated the way they do?
	Last edited by theprestige; 12th December 2020 at 02:39 PM.

12th December 2020, 04:54 PM	#122
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,352	Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal ah the content free unwillingness to self reflect ... he said, in a content-free post lacking any self reflection.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

12th December 2020, 05:31 PM	#123
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,319	Originally Posted by theprestige The Iranian regime being actively at war with its neighbors You have a very strange concept of what "active war" means, and the statement is pure nonsense. Originally Posted by theprestige I guarantee you that if the Iranian regime gave up its nuclear ambitions and abandoned its program of warfare-by-terrorism, they'd get a lot better treatment. Failing to answer my point that hostilities were minimal when USA was adhering to the agreement arranged by Obama. It was peaceful until your orange hero cancelled it. Originally Posted by theprestige Also you 'racism' argument... You're getting me mixed up with someone else. Originally Posted by theprestige But Iran? As you say, "they're a crazy bunch of islamofascists". And they're not peaceful about it, either. You ever stop to wonder if maybe that is why they get treated the way they do? I repeat - there was peace until your boy Trump decided to unilaterally rip the agreement up. Maybe it's you who should stop and think.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

13th December 2020, 05:56 AM	#124
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,352	Originally Posted by The Atheist I repeat - there was peace until your boy Trump decided to unilaterally rip the agreement up. No, there was not. If you think there was, you were not paying attention.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

13th December 2020, 07:07 AM	#125
Mader Levap Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,576	Originally Posted by The Atheist I don't believe that was in retaliation for the earlier attacks. They launched missiles at retaliatory targets and the shooting down of the airliner occurred days later. I think his point was it is possible that thing similar to shootdown of civilian airplane (because of paranoid atmosphere after assassination of Suleiman) could happen again after assassination of that scientist. Originally Posted by dudalb Here come the Iranian fanboys. Amaxzing how a right wing religoius regime has coneed so many on the left into supporting them. You do not need to support Iran to note USA's role in shaping Iran as it is today (fervently denied by certain people here, of course, since it would mean USA has it's share of blame for Iran's current state and we can't have that, do we?).
	__________________ Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

13th December 2020, 10:00 AM	#126
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,319	Originally Posted by Ziggurat No, there was not. If you think there was, you were not paying attention. I've asked for evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement. And nobody has posted any. I've searched records online to find evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement. And found none. There is ample evidence of aggressive acts before and after the agreement was put in place. I'm quite prepared to accept evidence of Iran's aggression in that period, but I've been unable to find any. You clearly have that evidence. Go ahead and show it.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

13th December 2020, 10:14 AM	#127
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,663	Originally Posted by The Atheist You have a very strange concept of what "active war" means, and the statement is pure nonsense. I find it strange that so few other intelligent people don't see Iran's use of terrorism as warfare against its neighbors and their allies. Quote: Failing to answer my point that hostilities were minimal when USA was adhering to the agreement arranged by Obama. It was peaceful until your orange hero cancelled it. Hostilities were minimal because Obama refused to take the regime to task for abrogating the agreement. Iran is threatening violence to get its way. This is extortion, and Obama cooperated with extortionists. I'd rather have a little violence now in a good cause, then let Iran get to the point where it can back its extortion with nuclear weapons. Quote: You're getting me mixed up with someone else. Yep! My bad. Quote: I repeat - there was peace until your boy Trump decided to unilaterally rip the agreement up. No, there was not. Iran actively promotes and funds violence throughout the region. And they had already abrogated the agreement by the time Trump took office. It wasn't him that tore it up. Quote: Maybe it's you who should stop and think. Stop and think about all of Iran's state-sponsored terrorism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_a...ther_countries

13th December 2020, 10:42 AM	#128
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,319	Originally Posted by theprestige I find it strange that so few other intelligent people don't see Iran's use of terrorism as warfare against its neighbors and their allies. As those intelligent people can also see that things like Israel's terrorist activities are also warfare against their neighbours and their allies, it seems a reasonable thing to look for, although I haven't denied any of Iran's atrocities, so I don't know who you mean. Originally Posted by theprestige Hostilities were minimal because Obama refused to take the regime to task for abrogating the agreement. Now we're getting somewhere slowly - you admit the hostilities dimmed to a flicker. But do show how they abrogated the agreement - it looked to me as though they were complying right up your orange buddy ditching it. Originally Posted by theprestige Iran is threatening violence to get its way. It's a bit tu quoque, but in a world where America, Russia, China, Israel and several dozen other countries use and threaten violence to get their own way, it's hardly something to single them out for. Originally Posted by theprestige Stop and think about all of Iran's state-sponsored terrorism? Maybe they'd ditch the terrorism if countries on the other side did likewise. Worked in Northern Ireland. Mostly.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

13th December 2020, 01:43 PM	#129
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,352	Originally Posted by The Atheist I've asked for evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement. And nobody has posted any. I've searched records online to find evidence of Iran's aggressive acts during the duration of the agreement. And found none. There is ample evidence of aggressive acts before and after the agreement was put in place. I'm quite prepared to accept evidence of Iran's aggression in that period, but I've been unable to find any. You clearly have that evidence. Go ahead and show it. For example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN0UW1Q7
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

13th December 2020, 02:01 PM	#130
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,663	Originally Posted by The Atheist As those intelligent people can also see that things like Israel's terrorist activities are also warfare against their neighbours and their allies, it seems a reasonable thing to look for, although I haven't denied any of Iran's atrocities, so I don't know who you mean. I don't deny that Israel is at war with its neighbors. I mean that you do deny that Iran is at war with its neighbors.

13th December 2020, 03:59 PM	#131
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,319	Originally Posted by Ziggurat For example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN0UW1Q7 Thanks for proving my point. They arrested and released some sailors. Quote: The U.S. sailors, who were aboard two patrol craft, were detained by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on January 12 when they inadvertently entered Iranian territorial waters. They were released the next day after being held for about 15 hours. Hardly an aggressive or violent act, and certainly not anything like an act of war or terrorism. I'd be prepared to bet that anyone arrested after straying into US waters is going to be held for more than 15 hours, just going by the ICE cages and incarcerations. Originally Posted by theprestige I don't deny that Israel is at war with its neighbors. I mean that you do deny that Iran is at war with its neighbors. We just have the bar for "at war" set differently, but if that's where you want it set, then I'd agree Iran is at war with its neighbours and allies. But clearly wasn't during the currency of the agreement, as Ziggurat has neatly evinced.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

13th December 2020, 04:23 PM	#132
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,663	Originally Posted by The Atheist Thanks for proving my point. They arrested and released some sailors. Hardly an aggressive or violent act, and certainly not anything like an act of war or terrorism. I'd be prepared to bet that anyone arrested after straying into US waters is going to be held for more than 15 hours, just going by the ICE cages and incarcerations. We just have the bar for "at war" set differently, but if that's where you want it set, then I'd agree Iran is at war with its neighbours and allies. But clearly wasn't during the currency of the agreement, as Ziggurat has neatly evinced. Evidenced* And a slowing of operational tempo between major campaigns is not the same as not being at war. They didn't stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah during this period. They didn't stop supporting insurgents in Iraq during this period. And they didn't stop abrogating your precious agreement during this period. The only reason they weren't causing more trouble directly for Obama was because he'd already given them a period of peace and quiet to advance their long-term strategy. They weren't going to **** that up for themselves, though Obama should have done it for them.

13th December 2020, 04:42 PM	#133
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,352	Originally Posted by theprestige And they didn't stop abrogating your precious agreement during this period. That's what I don't get about supporters of the deal: the refusal to acknowledge that Iran has never actually abided by it.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

13th December 2020, 05:30 PM	#134
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,663	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That's what I don't get about supporters of the deal: the refusal to acknowledge that Iran has never actually abided by it. Oh, but Obama never penalized them for it, so Peace For Our Time or something... Actually, that would make a lot of sense. The Munich Agreement was a huge success, thanks to the brilliant statesmanship of Neville Chamberlain, until that nasty old Winston Churchill called out poor Mister Adolf and started a war.

13th December 2020, 07:18 PM	#135
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,319	Originally Posted by theprestige Evidenced* Nope. I thought you might have noticed my custom title (or the last time you failed) and not bothered trying that kind of stuff again. Originally Posted by theprestige And a slowing of operational tempo between major campaigns is not the same as not being at war. When it slows to zero, it is. Originally Posted by theprestige They didn't stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah during this period. They didn't stop supporting insurgents in Iraq during this period. See my comment about NI - if Israel put down the guns first and treated claims to its occupied lands. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If the ME situation was as easy as getting Hamas/Hezbollah to put their guns down even Jared Kushner could have solved it. Originally Posted by theprestige And they didn't stop abrogating your precious agreement during this period. In. What. Way. Please list your evidence of the ways they broke the agreement. Originally Posted by theprestige The only reason they weren't causing more trouble directly for Obama was because he'd already given them a period of peace and quiet to advance their long-term strategy. They weren't going to **** that up for themselves, though Obama should have done it for them. With that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy you should have a go at writing a bible. Just curious - where do you list Iran in threats to USA and/or world peace? Put this list in order, and feel free to add any: North Korea Russia China Afghanistan Iran ISIS Al Qaeda Al Shabaab/Boko Haram Keeping in mind that Russia is still occupying Crimea and parts of Ukraine, North Korea is developing its nukes unhindered, China is still in charge of Honkers, and the Taliban is building an immense terrorist network thanks to all the lessons they've learned from America so far.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

13th December 2020, 07:49 PM	#136
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,394	Originally Posted by theprestige Oh, but Obama never penalized them for it, so Peace For Our Time or something... Actually, that would make a lot of sense. The Munich Agreement was a huge success, thanks to the brilliant statesmanship of Neville Chamberlain, until that nasty old Winston Churchill called out poor Mister Adolf and started a war. Huh? Neville Chamberlain declared war, not Churchill.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

14th December 2020, 09:10 AM	#137
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,663	Originally Posted by angrysoba Huh? Neville Chamberlain declared war, not Churchill. Heh. I guess it's true what they say about arguments from analogy. :-D

5th January 2021, 03:58 PM	#138
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,319	Originally Posted by dudalb THis could get nasty with Iran swearing revenge....... I just thought I'd check in and see how much vengeance they've done so far.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.